When she said he "choked"

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:45 am

And when he said Putin doesn't respect her, and she hit him back with "because he wants a puppet"...I got hype. No more taking the high road in this debate.

Post by **aels** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:46 am

I know! And then he shouted 'YOU'RE THE PUPPET' and I am dead, I am murdered.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:56 am

A hundred years from now political scientists will argue about whether the downfall of America was caused by Clinton vs. Trump or if this election was merely a symptom.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:17 am

And he literally looks like a melting puppet when he does that fucking smirk.

Post by **aels** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:19 am

'Just like we went after Bin Laden... while you were doing Celebrity Apprentice'.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:41 am

Lol

And they just made their closing statements. After Wallace explicitly said to end on a positive note, she made a case for what she stands for, while Trump began his statement with an attack and rambled about things he is against. The dude stands for nothing.

Post by **aels** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:43 am

I essentially liveblogged the debate on Facebook and my comment an hour in was ' Mate, you started talking thirty seconds ago, are you getting anywhere closer to addressing the fucking question'.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 3:57 am

aels wrote:I know! And then he shouted 'YOU'RE THE PUPPET' and I am dead, I am murdered.

"She's the one with the bad temperament! She's always screaming, she's constantly lying, her hair is crazy, her face is completely orange except around the eyes where it's white, and when she stops talking her mouth looks like a tiny... little... butthole."

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:02 am

"He's unfit and he proves it every time he talks."
"No, you are the one that is unfit!"

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:51 am

And when he tried to attack her using Sanders, which many have been pointing out is a dog whistle for angry white dude(something he has done in every debate), she threw it right back in his face by quoting Sanders' endorsement of her and his strong disapproval of Trump. The timing of it was just beautiful. And then I'm pretty sure the moderator laughed. She seemed much more directly confrontational and sharper than previous debates.

Trump was right..she's obviously been taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:49 am

Meanwhile, gogo thinks that Trump's locker room talk is "totally normal" among "heterosexual males in their prime".

"I GUARANTEE, Schlacko, you have said similar things on multiple occasions at some point in your life. Of course, you just don't want to recall those days."
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000082/fla ... #262307785

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:41 pm

Why isn't that guy dead yet?

Post by **Gendo** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:00 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Why isn't that guy dead yet?

Because he hasn't threatened to expose Hillary's secrets.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:10 pm

I say we frame him by getting Russia to hack his account.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:00 pm

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... et-screed/

I don't understand why so many people are just brushing off Hillary's deranged rhetoric here though, and focusing so much on Trump's "temperament" and how he might not recognize the legitimacy of the elections or whatever. Is it really not a big deal that Hillary just accused her rival of literally being a servant to a hostile foreign power? Is it really not a big deal that geopolitical tensions right now between two nuclear superpowers are lower than they've been in several decades? Is it really not a big deal that Russia is literally taking concrete steps right now to prepare for war against the United States? Is it really not a big deal that our likely future president is practically salivating over the possibility? Is it really not a big deal that so many media observers are saying that the media is far more fanatically anti-Russia than it was any point they could remember during the Cold War?

Why is none of this a big deal to people? Am I missing something?

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:03 pm

Michael Tracey is a bloody idiot.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:23 pm

I don't really give a fuck. I don't know who he is. Anything in the article you have a problem with?

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:31 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Michael Tracey is a bloody idiot.

Or maybe he wishes that the USA were more like Putin's Russia.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:32 pm

What the fuck does that even mean? Go away.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Oct 22, 2016 11:37 pm

I haven't read it yet. I just saw the name and had a visceral reaction because he's an idiot.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:30 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:What the fuck does that even mean?

It's an impression I had after reading the article. Of course I could be wrong.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 2:28 pm

Yeah, you're a fucking moron of epic proportions, that's been well-established. How the fucking hell could you possibly get that stupid shit out of the article? Your reading comprehension fucking sucks. How the hell have you managed to survive for forty years being this fucking stupid?

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 3:01 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Yeah, you're a fucking moron of epic proportions

Thanks.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:52 pm

Read it. Sounds to me like pearl-clutching, hyperbole, and fear-mongering - from a notorious anti-Clinton "brocialist" who has a history of framing Clinton statements and positions selectively to support his position, and who apparently has an alt-right following. He has also been accused of racism for calling football players thugs and doubling down on it, and for passively condoning his followers taking part in misogynistic harassment campaigns against women he disagrees with. Remember when I said there was a growing connection between the left and the right? This guy is a poster child for it. And it's not coincidence that is "connection" is made up mostly of white dudes. Greenwald, another prominent brocialist, promoted the "oathkeepers" on his twitter a few years ago. What's happening is, because right bros and left bros are anti-Clinton and anti-democratic party, there is a lot of overlap going on there.

Couple examples of what I mean by hyperbole:

1) I took the puppet remark as more of a snarky retort to him repeatedly saying Putin doesn't respect her. That at worst, it means he would be too soft with Putin, and be a pushover...which was right after she made the remark about him "choking" when he went to see the Mexican President. So, the puppet remark came across to me as accusing Trump of being all talk, while actually being a pushover. This Tracey mofo would have you believe she literally meant that Trump is a Manchurian candidate under mind-control. And, if you frame it that way, I can see why that is obviously a very scary allegation to make that could easily lead to escalation. His framing is dishonest.

2) Accusing Russia of hacking American emails and websites is a serious allegation...but it's not that serious. I'm sure America does the same damn thing, and they know it. I believe in one of her emails, Hillary talks about having to leave devices on planes in different countries because they know they are trying to hack their phones and get info. She talks about it casually, like it's a well-understood open-secret kind of thing that happens with competitive nations that you have a somewhat "friendly"(for lack of a better term) relationship with. To act like accusing Russia of trying to get info on America is such an offensive accusation that could lead to nuclear war is hyperbole.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 8:22 pm

At the very least, there's a range of ways to frame and interpret many things here, yet he has chosen to frame words, actions, and consequences in the scariest possible light...because its driven by an agenda.

Post by **aels** » Sun Oct 23, 2016 10:20 pm

1) I took the puppet remark as more of a snarky retort to him repeatedly saying Putin doesn't respect her. That at worst, it means he would be too soft with Putin, and be a pushover...which was right after she made the remark about him "choking" when he went to see the Mexican President. So, the puppet remark came across to me as accusing Trump of being all talk, while actually being a pushover.

Yeah, I took it the same way - similar to when people used to accuse Blair of being Bush's poodle.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 3:18 am

1) I took the puppet remark as more of a snarky retort to him repeatedly saying Putin doesn't respect her. That at worst, it means he would be too soft with Putin, and be a pushover...which was right after she made the remark about him "choking" when he went to see the Mexican President. So, the puppet remark came across to me as accusing Trump of being all talk, while actually being a pushover. This Tracey mofo would have you believe she literally meant that Trump is a Manchurian candidate under mind-control. And, if you frame it that way, I can see why that is obviously a very scary allegation to make that could easily lead to escalation. His framing is dishonest.

That might be a point, if the Hillary campaign hadn't spent the last several months accusing Donald Trump of literally being an agent of the Kremlin, or very heavily implying that he was one. Hillary herself and her surrogates have been all over the news for a while darkly insinuating that Trump is working directly for Putin, either wittingly or unwittingly. Trump being a subversive Manchurian spy in league with the enemy has been a cornerstone of her campaign for a while. That's something I've complained about before here, because of all the stuff you could attack Trump on, I thought it was amazing that the Clinton camp was choosing to focus on the one thing which there was no evidence for and which America doesn't seem to care about anyway. I thought that if Bernie became the nominee we'd see a hilarious and desperate display of red-baiting from the Republicans, and it's been amazing to see it directed at Trump from the Democrats instead.

So with that context, I don't think it's unjustifiable for someone to interpret her "puppet" remark literally. This guy may have been willfully interpreting it in a way that serves his agenda, but not all who interpreted it the way he did are.

2) Accusing Russia of hacking American emails and websites is a serious allegation...but it's not that serious.

I sort of agree, but the article mentioned other ways that Hillary is or is planning to escalate tensions with Russia, notably her call for a no-fly zone in Syria. Clinton defenders seem to think this isn't a big deal and that people are exaggerating the dangers of that, but I don't see what grounds they have for thinking that. It's not just right-wing freaks pointing out the potential dangers. It's simply a fact that if she declares a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia will almost certainly respond aggressively. No, it probably won't lead to nuclear war, but the stakes are too dire to be fucking around like that.

Hillary has always been extremely militaristic. The article pointed that she seems to be at her most animated when she's aiming ire at her enemies, whether it be Iran, Syria, Russia, or whoever else, which is noteworthy. That's something she's particularly passionate about. Iraq and Libya shows that she's either oblivious to the damage her foreign policy decisions cause or that she simply doesn't give a fuck. Either way, she's dangerous.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:17 am

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:13 am

I'm glancing over Michael Tracy's Twitter, dude seems like a closet Trump supporter. He keeps bringing out all these Trump supporters and chastising anyone who makes fun of them. Seems to have a problem with Hillary calling them deplorables. He used to support Jim Webb, lol. Whatever. What a moron. Also your examples, although I can't find anything on them.

Glenn Greenwald is not on the left. He's a right-wing libertarian. To the extent that he has any consistent beliefs. Which he doesn't, except beliefs in his own super-importance.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:10 pm

Glenn Greenwald is not on the left. He's a right-wing libertarian. To the extent that he has any consistent beliefs. Which he doesn't, except beliefs in his own super-importance.

So like any other "libertarian" then.

It's my opinion that Russia is not stupid enough to go against the United States any time soon. So the whole U.S vs Russia is just a scare tactic, I don't see any way Russia or anyone could or would want to stand against the United States and NATO. The only countries who do are shitholes that have nothing to lose like North Korea. Russia's economy is globalized and too weak to stand up against the real superpowers, it might be testing the waters to see how far they can push back, but I don't see them going for that big step, it would be stupid from them. But again, stupid is not a factor anymore.

Anything can happen now!

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:40 pm

Centrist Libertarianism
Green Libertarianism
Geolibertarianism
Left-libertarianism'
Libertarian Socialism
Libertarian Marxism

^All right-wing.

Blade Azaezel · Post by **Blade Azaezel** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:50 pm

CashRules wrote:Centrist Libertarianism
Green Libertarianism
Geolibertarianism
Left-libertarianism'
Libertarian Socialism
Libertarian Marxism

^All right-wing.

Liszt has moved to a real country now, so she'll slowly adjust to being normal. Adjust or die.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:33 pm

I didn't fucking say that, though.

Nothing to adjust here this time except the failure understand context and the lack of manners or education or civility, to actually ASK for a clarification.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:39 pm

Seriously, I reread my sentence and there is nothing that implies that "all libertariansm is right wing".

So fuck off.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:04 pm

He's a right-wing libertarian.

So like any other "libertarian" then.

That doesn't simply imply that all libertarianism is right-wing, it flat-out states it directly and unambiguously.

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:20 pm

I've been pretty much apathetic to politics most of my life, but I've been reading up on Libertarianism the past couple years and can't really figure out why it gets all the hate it does.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:27 pm

Boomer wrote:I've been pretty much apathetic to politics most of my life, but I've been reading up on Libertarianism the past couple years and can't really figure out why it gets all the hate it does.

Mostly because the Libertarian Party in the U.S. is almost entirely controlled by right-wing, pro-corporate libertarians. They actually provide evidence for the common Democratic claim that libertarians are merely "Republicans who smoke weed". Centrist and leftist libertarians have almost no voice in the U.S. and have almost zero chance of being accepted within the Libertarian Party. Bernie Sanders is closer to a centrist libertarian than any politician of any notoriety.

Boomer · Post by **Boomer** » Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:58 pm

CashRules wrote:
Boomer wrote:I've been pretty much apathetic to politics most of my life, but I've been reading up on Libertarianism the past couple years and can't really figure out why it gets all the hate it does.
Mostly because the Libertarian Party in the U.S. is almost entirely controlled by right-wing, pro-corporate libertarians. They actually provide evidence for the common Democratic claim that libertarians are merely "Republicans who smoke weed". Centrist and leftist libertarians have almost no voice in the U.S. and have almost zero chance of being accepted within the Libertarian Party. Bernie Sanders is closer to a centrist libertarian than any politician of any notoriety.

Fair enough, I guess equating the LP with the philosophy itself without further research would lead people to that conclusion.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:49 am

What is your definition of libertarian?

Libertarianism the philosophy just means personal liberty and freedom, which is great, except that right-wing libertarians in the United States use this to basically mean just personal freedom from the state, while being completely beholden to gargantuan corporations and the whims of the market. Libertarians of that stripe want to make the government as small as possible, which is good news for abortion and gay rights and drug rights and privacy and so on, but not so good for economic or labor rights, because it'll mean it just gives rapacious capitalists free reign to do basically anything with nothing to stop them or reign them in. There'll be no social safety net for workers, there'll be no regulations, there'll be no minimum wage, there'll be nothing at all. Anything that gets in the way of corporations doing whatever they want restricts their "freedom" according to these people.

Furthermore libertarians have an extremely social Darwinist view of the world. People who are wealthy deserve it because they worked hard and the market naturally rewards virtue and hard work, while consequently people who are poor deserve their suffering. The world is divided into winners and losers, and the market decides which is which, and that's natural and just, because the market is some mystical force of nature and whatever it says goes. It's an extremely mean and ugly way of viewing the world. Not to mention just simply false. The world doesn't work that way.

So what right-wing libertarians want is a world where gargantuan corporations can do virtually anything they want, where everything is defined by constant and incessant competition and where people are ruthlessly compelled to pursue their own self-interests in defiance of the well-being of the community at large, and where if you "lose" in the competition you deserve whatever suffering you get... and all the while this is justified as promoting "freedom" just because you can smoke weed and poor people can't get welfare. It would be a dystopian hellhole.

There are also left-wing libertarians, who are concerned not only with freedom from the state but freedom from the oppressive forces of capitalist modes of production and the ruthless dictates of "the market". They realize that the invisible hand of the market can be even more totalitarian than the iron fist of the state, and they basically want to transform the economy from the ground up into mutual cooperatives which work for the good of the community at large. That's basically what I am. Another word for that is "socialist". It's literally the exact opposite of right-wing libertarianism.

So libertarianism is many things, but thanks to Ayn Rand the right-wing version is what's popular in the United States right now, so that's the one people usually mean when they say "libertarian". Often right-wing libertarians are so fucking ignorant that they don't even realize socialist libertarianism is even a thing, even though that's where their whole idea was stolen from.

Edit: I type too much.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:51 am

Right-wing libertarians are ignorant to the fact that libertarianism for corporations and libertarianism for the individual are mutually exclusive philosophies. I don't oppose capitalism but I strongly oppose corporate capitalism. If there is something that needs to be done and the most effective way to do that something is via the state then it should be financed by taxes on corporations and corporate dividends. That should be the purpose of corporations, to pay for everything and shut the fuck up about it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:22 am

I've never been able to tell what the difference is between "corporate capitalism" and just regular capitalism.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:27 am

Sole proprietors aren't likely to take over the world's economy.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:42 am

That's non-corporate capitalism? An economy of sole proprietors? My question is, how would that not just naturally evolve into "a marketplace characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations", Wikipedia's definition of corporate capitalism?

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:01 am

I'm not sure i understand the question. A sole proprietorship is not going to become a corporation because then it wouldn't still be a sole proprietorship. They don't get the unfair economic benefits of corporations which include almost no personal liability for wrong doing. If a corporation violates the law it just raises more money to cover legal expenses through the sale of stock or bonds. The larger the corporation, the more likely the taxpayer is to foot the bill through government stepping in and saving the corporation. If a sole proprietor violates the law that person is going to pay any fines incurred and, if he has to declare bankruptcy, a new proprietor steps in and takes over that market for that general geographic locale. That actually creates the competition that capitalism is supposed to create and prevents monopolies. Locally owned department and grocery stores in each town employ more people and keep the local economy functioning much better than a system of WalMarts in every town all controlled by one family that force their vendors to provide goods as cheaply as possible, which usually means sending jobs overseas and depending on child labor (slavery). So the manufacturing base remains at home creating more jobs. If those manufacturers are also proprietorships then they don't benefit from unfair labor and economic rules. Personal responsibility and accountability are great motivators for doing things correctly. Government bail-outs are not much of a motivational tool.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:07 am

CashRules wrote:
He's a right-wing libertarian.

So like any other "libertarian" then.
That doesn't simply imply that all libertarianism is right-wing, it flat-out states it directly and unambiguously.

She could have meant all libertarians don't have any consistent beliefs, except belief in their own self-importance, which is actually what I thought she meant when I read her post.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:24 am

Two of the three sentences that were quoted state that Greenwald is right wing instead of left wing and the third is a supporting sentence of that sentiment. It's overly generous to interpret her reply as only being to one of four quoted sentences.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:28 am

BruceSmith78 wrote:
CashRules wrote:
He's a right-wing libertarian.

So like any other "libertarian" then.
That doesn't simply imply that all libertarianism is right-wing, it flat-out states it directly and unambiguously.
She could have meant all libertarians don't have any consistent beliefs, except belief in their own self-importance, which is actually what I thought she meant when I read her post.

^^^^^^^^^

Except I even wrote "libertarians".

So it doesn't directly state it. Your remove one part of a sentence to take it out of context to fit your idiotic narrative. It's even a bit dishonest.

Learn to fucking English.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 7:37 am

Edit: Fuck it. I'm not putting myself through this bullshit again. They don't make enough Xanax.

Dr_Liszt · Post by **Dr_Liszt** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:11 am

No dude. You are wrong this time.

The arrogance of you, to come here and explain what MY words mean to ME. The person who wrote it. And use your lame assumptions as facts?? I do not have my head up my ass. At least this time.

Does me critisicing right wing libertarianism upsets you too much to the point you have to find any way to ridiculously argue with me and silence me??? Is that the main issue? Why don't you act like a civilised person and actually ASK why do I have a problem with the ideology, you know as if I were a human being?

What upsets me about this is the assumption that I do not know what libertarianism is and the idea i am somehow stupid. You just automatically assumed I do not know these things. Is like I pissed on your cereal one morning and now you have to go after me for revenge and find any lame excuse you can get.

I haven't done anything to earn your resentment man, if your cornflakes taste like piss that is your own problem.

And for the record, my facebook page is libertarian socialist . So you just want to fight with me for no other thing than your own silly assumptions.

So what is the problem really?
Is it because I am easy to bully and maybe it inflates your self esteem to do it? Like you feel good about yourself right now?

Or did i apparently teletransported to your house and actually did piss on your cereal?

There is absolutely no reason to earn your resentment man, I can't seriously do anything to take anything from you nor have I taken anything from you.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:23 am

Are you on crystal meth? This thread is the first time I've even replied to you in I don't even remember how many months. How the hell could I be upset about you criticizing right-wing libertarianism on a thread where i criticized right-wing libertarianism? Sense...make some. Literally nothing you just said is even remotely relevant to anything that's going on.